Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Friday, February 28, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 755)
Policy

regulations

What’s the best way to understand the burden of government regulation and red tape? Is it better to focus on the overall burden by sharing data about aggregate cost, job losses, time wasted, and foregone growth?

Or is it better to look at specific examples of regulatory foolishness, such as silly rules that force consumers touse crummy dishwashers, inferior light bulbs, substandard toilets, and inadequate washing machines?

If the latter approach is best, we have a great (in a bad sense) new example.

Nicole Carroll of CrossFit has a column in the Washington Post that dissects a disturbing new regulatory scheme from the busy-body local government.

D.C….government is developing misguided regulations that would add burdensome red tape to the most innovative fitness programs. Specifically, the D.C. Council has enacted a law — the first in the nation — that would define what personal fitness trainers can and cannot do, require them to register.

Just in case you think this sounds reasonable in theory (and you shouldn’t), take a look at what it means in practice.

If early drafts of the regulations are advanced, D.C. fitness trainers will have to divert their attention from improving lives to bureaucratic burdens: taking courses they don’t need, adhering to methods they don’t believe in, paying fees that will be passed on to their clients and looking over their shoulders at ever-present regulators. The draft regulations even call for a four-year college degree.

Huh?!? Why would a personal trainer need a college degree? And why should trainers be forced to take courses or follow one-size-fits-all methodologies?

Sounds like a bunch of red tape that will make it hard for low-income people to become trainers.

And what will this mean for consumers?

Well, higher costs at the very least.

The immediate impact would be to make fitness programs less accessible, more expensive and more elitist. Thousands of residents would lose the opportunity to follow programs that will help them get stronger, lose weight and enjoy a better quality of life.

Sound like a lose-lose proposition, right?

Who could be for such a bad idea? Why are D.C. politicians pushing such a foolish plan?

The answer is special-interest corruption.

…entrenched interests can drive up costs and close markets for competitors, preventing new products and services from improving the status quo. The groups pushing hardest for licensure are entrenched institutions such as the American College of Sports Medicine, the National Strength and Conditioning Association and the Register of Exercise Professionals. …a not-so-credible agenda to defend their long-established but increasingly threatened business models and stifle successful competition. They want the licensing because they will profit from it. For those in the Exercise Industrial Complex, the fear of disruptive competition explains why they want to make the District the first jurisdiction in the nation to regulate fitness programs.

Here’s the bottom line.

Instead of raising standards, burdensome regulations would have the effect of driving newcomers out of the industry — and pricing many moderate-income people out of fitness programs.

Licensing and regulation of personal trainers is just one example of a worrisome trend in governments across the country.

This video from the Institute for Justice has disturbing details of how special interests conspire with politicians in various states to impose high burdens that make it hard for people to work.

[brid video=”13153″ player=”1929″ title=”Should You Need the Government’s Permission to Work”]

Isn’t this typical? Politicians always claim to be for the little guy, but licensing rules are all about erecting high barriers to protect entrenched incumbents from competition.

This chart shows how much time and money is needed to work in certain professions that generally use lower-income workers.

Chart-low-income-occupations-by-number-by-burden

By the way, the same principle applies to the tax system. The political elites often argue against a flat tax because it would be a boon to the rich.

But it’s the powerful and well-connected that benefit from the Byzantine system of credits, exemptions, deductions, exclusions, preferences, and other loopholes in the tax code.

Rest assured that poor people aren’t hiring all the high-paid lobbyists that specialize in manipulating the tax code in Washington. Which is why honest and well-intentioned leftists should support real tax reform. Just like they should support sweeping deregulation.

What is the best way to understand

Video

Black-Lives-Matter-leaders-activists-Seattle

Marrisa Johnson and Mara Jacqueline Willaford, both members of the Black Lives Matter movement, hijacking a campaign event for socialist and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in Seattle, Washington.

SEATTLE (AP) — Black Lives Matter activists interrupted Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders at an event in Seattle, Washington on Saturday afternoon. Marrisa Johnson and Mara Jacqueline Willaford, both members of the Black Lives Matter movement, hijacked the microphone and event in order to shout grievances, racist statements, and attempted to force Sen. Sanders and the crowd to observe the death of Michael Brown, the 18-year-old who was shot justifiably by former Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson after a confrontation.

It wasn’t long before the racial slurs started flying from Marrisa Johnson, a leader of the Black Lives Matter movement in Seattle, who was booed after she called the liberal crowd “white racists.”

“How dare you,” one women in the crowd can be heard shouting at Johnson, which was repeated by a man previously booing and shouting, “Get off!”

How did all of this unfold, before and after?

Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, who was shoved away from the podium and microphone by several Black Lives Matter activists, eventually left the event in Seattle without giving his speech. He had just starting to address another large crowd, numbers in the several thousands who gathered to stand shoulder-to-shoulder at Westlake Park, when two women took over the microphone.

[brid video=”13150″ player=”1929″ title=”Black Lives Matter Leader Interrupts Bernie Sanders Booed for Calling Crowd “White Racists””]

Prior to Ms. Johnson’s very unwelcomed rant, Team Sanders trued to persuade them to wait until he was finished speaking in exchange for a chance to be heard following his speech. But that wasn’t good enough.

“If you do not listen to her, your event will be shut down right now!” one woman yelled at Sanders before he stepped back. “Let her speak or we shut it down!

“Let her speak or we shut it down!” another Black Lives Matter activist yelled. “Stop asking questions and let her speak now!”

The women spoke about Ferguson and the killing of Michael Brown and held a four minute moment of silence. After roughly 20 minutes, when the crowd was screaming for them to get off and allow the presidential candidate to speak, Sanders was physically pushed away as he tried to take hold of the microphone.

When the crowd asked the activists to allow Sanders to speak, one activist called the crowd “white supremacist liberals,” according to event participants.

Finally, he waved goodbye, left the stage with a raised fist salute and waded into the crowd. He shook hands with supporters and posed for photos for roguhly 15 minutes before leaving. The rally at Westlake Park was organized as a birthday celebration for Social security, Medicare and Medicaid.

This is the second time the Black Lives Movement has interrupted a campaign event. At a town hall for Democratic presidential candidates in Phoenix last month, protesters affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement took over the stage and disrupted an interview with Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. When questioned on MSNBC, the movement’s leader said they would also do everything in their power to shut down the Republican National Convention in 2016.

A Black Lives Matter leader was booed

Sports

NFL-Frank-Gifford

Frank Gifford played in seven Pro Bowls with the New York Giants. (Photo: AP)

NFL Hall of Famer and legendary broadcaster Frank Gifford, a died Sunday at his Connecticut home of natural causes just seven days shy of his 85th birthday. Gifford, a former New York Giants No. 1 draft pick, is survived by his wife, television personality Kathy Lee Gifford, among others.

“We rejoice in the extraordinary life he was privileged to live,” the family said in a statement, “and we feel grateful and blessed to have been loved by such an amazing human being.”

Frank Newton Gifford was born Aug. 16, 1930, in Santa Monica, Calif., as the son of an itinerant oil worker. Growing up in Depression-era California, Gifford had estimated the family moved 47 times before he even entered high school, and at the worst of times slept in parks or the family car while eating dog food. He was a star at Bakersfield High School and was an All-American during his senior season at the University of Southern California.

Gifford was drafted by the Giants in 1952, playing both offense and defense in New York. He was named NFL Player of the Year in 1956, when he rushed for 819 yards, picked up 603 yards receiving and scored 9 touchdowns in 12 games. The Giants destroyed the Chicago Bears 47-7 at Yankee Stadium that year, which was before they had their own stadium, and Gifford shared a locker with Mickey Mantle. He was named to seven Pro Bowls for three different positions – defensive back, halfback and flanker.

In 12 seasons with the New York Giants, Gifford scored 34 rushing touchdowns and 43 receiving touchdowns, which led to his election to the Hall of Fame in 1977 and Gifford’s jersey number, 16, was retired by the Giants in 2000.

But his career wasn’t all easy-going or happy-ending.

He fumbled twice early in the 1958 NFL championship game — which was dubbed was dubbed “The Greatest Game Ever Played” by everyone but Gifford — and they both led to Baltimore Colts touchdowns. He would came up short on a critical third down later in the big game, which the Colts won 23-17 in the league’s first ever overtime game. The Giants were forced to punt in the ’58 game, leading to a famous drive led by Colts quarterback Johnny Unitas that sent the game into overtime. Gifford and his teammates felt he was robbed by an incorrectly spotted ball with less than three minutes left in the fourth quarter. However, later video technology employed for a 50th anniversary documentary indicated the call was correct.

“Not my greatest game,” Gifford told the AP in 2008, taking responsibility for the mishaps. “I fumbled going out (of the end zone) and I fumbled going in.”

Gifford retired after the 1964 season, four years after a devastating hit by 233-pound Eagles linebacker Chuck Bednarik in November 1960. The hit flattened Gifford and is widely believed to have shortened his football career. Bednarik was pictured standing over the unconscious Gifford pumping his fist, a celebration many thought to be callous, in poor taste and way over the top. Gifford was in the hospital for 10 days and sidelined until 1962.

He then turned to broadcasting, initially working with CBS before joining ABC’s “Monday Night Football” in 1971 as a play-by-play announcer before moving on as an analyst. His marriage to Kathie Lee Gifford, who famously called him a “human love machine” and “lamb-chop” to her millions of viewers, kept Frank in the spotlight. He was a handsome, straight-talking man of character who enjoyed enormous popularity among the viewers and fans. Gifford even tried to put his movie star-like looks to use in Hollywood, where he appeared in roughly a dozen films, most notably “Up Periscope,” a 1959 submarine movie.

Gifford also hosted “Wide World of Sports” and covered several Olympics, where he made his call of Frank Klammer’s gold medal run in 1976, which is considered a broadcasting masterpiece. He announced 588 consecutive NFL games for ABC, not even taking time off after the death of his mother shortly before a broadcast in 1986. While he worked with others, including Dan Dierdorf, Al Michaels, Joe Namath and O.J. Simpson, Gifford was most known for the eight years beside Don Meredith and Howard Cosell. The show marked a milestone in Americancultural and sports, extravagantly throwing parades for the visiting announcers and celebrities, including for John Lennon and Ronald Reagan.

“I hate to use the words ‘American institution,’ but there’s no other way to put it, really,” Gifford told The Associated Press in 1993. “There’s nothing else like it.”

NFL Hall of Famer and legendary broadcaster

Politics

How-Obama-Sided-With-Muslim-Brotherhood-Getty

Anti-Morsi protesters at Tahrir Square in Cairo, July 3, 2014, protest U.S. President Barack Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

(Author’s Note: This is the first of several installments to come on this issue.)

Since we were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda and have learned how the Muslim Brotherhood assisted in the planning and preparations, you would think that would mean that the U.S. federal government would not be offering them monetary handouts. But that is sadly not true.

In 2004, the United States served a search Warrant on Ismail Elbrasse, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America at the time. Through that search of Elbrasse’s hidden sub-basement the Explanatory Memorandum was discovered. It revealed a sinister war of infiltration and subversion against both Canada and the United States of America. Below is just one paragraph from the missive written as early as 1991.

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

Under the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, funds from the federal government have gone directly to sources proven to have terrorist connections here in the United States. With this stated it is beyond this writers understanding why these organizations are allowed to exist in the USA much less receive financial assistance from the federal government!

Council On American Islamic Relations (CAIR) 059-90010

Anaheim, CA

Award Amount            $70,324

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awarded the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) $70,324 to provide “Critical infrastructure and key resources protection” this past April 28th. It is important to note that CAIR is the former Islamic Association of Palestine and was listed as an Unindicted Co-conspirator in the largest terror funding trial in American history (USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, 2007, 2008). HLF was found guilty of funding Hamas and money laundering. Federal agencies such as the FBI have been forbidden from interacting with CAIR since 2008! But for some reason this year, they are trusted by the federal government to provide critical infrastructure and key resources protection. A true example of the Fox guarding the Hen House!

Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center GS11B02021

Falls Church, VA

Award Amount:             $628,589

Federal funding of this mosque was first exposed by Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) in 2010. Emerson rightly brought concern that the incredible laxness or overt funding of Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center that had previously and continually proven to be one of the favorite stomping grounds of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Anwar Awlaki, was a former “spiritual advisor” to two of the 9/11 terrorists according to the 9/11 Commission at the Falls Church Mosque!

IPT cited White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs interview on CBS’ Face the Nation on May 23, 2010.

Mister Awlaki … supports al Qaeda’s agenda of murder and violence. In fact, in recent videotapes, he’s said he’s a member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who has an agenda just like al Qaeda to strike targets in Yemen, throughout the world, including here in the United States…. the President, yesterday [said] to graduates at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point that members of al Qaeda are small men who will be on the wrong side of history. Those cadets, many of them will go to Afghanistan to pursue our battles there, to keep our country safe. And the President will continue to take action directly at terrorists like Awlaki, and keep our country safe from their murderous thugs.

The date above was placed in bold in this quote to indicate that though Press Secretary Gibbs indicated that Amlaki was a terrorist in his May 2010 interview, the US government had been making two payments of $23,281.08, every three months. This means the US government was making a quarterly $46,562.16 payment to the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center since October 1, 2008. This places approval for the contract under President George W. Bush’s administration. This contract was voided only because of the good work of the Investigative Project on Terrorism which exposed how the government was paying for a US Census Bureau office in the Falls Church Mosque. According to USA Spending.gov the last payment to this Islamist supporting mosque was on October 1, 2010. They received a total of $628,589 over a two year period.

Steven Coughlin’s book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad (2015) records several observations by the FBI of Anwar Awlaki’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. In one case he notes:

As late as 2006, FBI witness statements noted Awlaki’s Muslim Brotherhood status, going so far as to note that a witness had broke contact with Awlaki when learning of his Brotherhood connections.[1]

Please do read IPT’s extensive review of those charged with terrorism and what has been taught at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center to see further evidence as to why any contract with this organization should NEVER have happened.

North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) —-DUNS: 792211732

Columbia , Missouri

Awarded:             $10,000 +

Due to the numerous awards this organization has received its federal identification number (DUNS) is given instead of a contract or Grant number.

According to federal court documents, NAIT was listed seventh as a member organization on the Explanatory Memorandum quoted above, and was listed as an Unindicted Coconspirator in the USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, 2007, 2008 trial on terrorist funding of Hamas.

NAIT acts like a banking institution to establish mosques, aka Islamic Cultural Centers. It is registered as a Non-Profit with the Federal government. FOX News revealed on February 1, 2014:

Records show that since 1998, the North American Islamic Trust has received over $10,000 across 34 separate taxpayer-funded programs. NAIT’s two relatively small land plots are tax-zoned as “agricultural” — but they aren’t developed.

The group has been able to obtain farm subsidies legally without producing any crops because it is a nonprofit “charity group” landowner — so it received subsidies on top of being tax-exempt.

This means that funds to the Muslim Brotherhood entity known as NAIT, began under the Clinton administration. The Fox News report also had stated that the payments to NAIT had been stopped in 2008:

During the trial, the group’s farm subsidies stopped, only to be reinstated after a federal judge cleared them.

However, the group was not removed from the Unindicted Co-Conspirator list as the Fox news report appears to state! Which brings into question why payments were allowed to continue!

ISLAMIC CENTER OF LEXINGTON INCORPORATED

Lexington, KY

AWARDED:                  $38,000 +

According to Fayette County, KY records, the Islamic Center of Lexington is owned by the Muslim Students Association the first established entity of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The Muslim Students Association was the first Muslim Brotherhood entity established in America. This was noted in the Holy Land Foundation trial on terrorist funding.

This mosque provides chaplain services to area prisons. It is a well known fact that Islamists recruit inside American prisons. Trusting an organization to provide chaplain services that is owned by an FBI identified representative of the Muslim Brotherhood (See USA v. HLF transcript), is an example of a lack of knowledge of who has declared war on the United States and Canada.

Conclusion

This research into the federal funding of the many Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist front groups is hardly extensive. It only scratches the surface of the federal government’s willing refusal to acknowledge those who threaten to harm us, the citizens of the United States and our representative government.

[1] FBI Witness Transcript – October 2006, Judicial Watch Document regarding Al-Awlaki, Federal bureau of Investigation (FBI) document (Obtained by Judicial Watch for FOIA (31 May 2013) – DECLASSIFIED – labeled 1174529-000, pg. 257/348, 13 October 2006.

Under Obama, Bush and Clinton, federal funding

World

Soldiers-Sevare-Mali

Malian forces patrolling through the northern town of Sevare. Two Malian soldiers are among those killed. (Photo: EPA)

(SEVARE, Mali) On Friday, the Associated Press reported on two Islamist attacks on hotels in Sevare, Mali. According to the report given by Malian Lt. Col. Diarran Kone, “the Islamic militants assaulted one hotel in the town of Sevare, and then after an exchange of gunfire moved on to the Hotel Byblos next door where they grabbed between six and ten people.”

Today, after a pre-dawn raid by Malian paramilitaries, the BBC reported that “at least three gunmen are dead and seven have been arrested, while five Malian soldiers were said to have been killed in the attack.

According to UN personnel, two South Africans, one Russian and one Ukrainian walked out alive from the hotel. They were hiding inside the hotel and had not been found by the Islamists. UN personnel reported that they had been in contact with the survivors throughout the ordeal.

Four victims of the attack were found inside the Byblos Hotel. One of the victims of the Islamist attack was a South African who “was attached to an aviation company rendering services to the UN contingent in Mali,” according to a tweet by South African Foreign Ministry spokesman Nelson Kgwete.

The BBC report revealed a UN spokeswoman had reported that the attacks on the hotels occurred after an attack on a Malian army facility only 20 meters from the hotel. The attack included armed men on motor bikes, which left 13 dead.

Northern Mali has been under a series of Islamist attacks since the French left in 2013, giving control to the UN after rendering assistance and freeing much of the country from Islamist control in January 2013. Past attacks of a similar nature have been claimed by Ansar Dine. The government of Qatar has been accused of funding their projects in the past.

Ansar Dine is an associate of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

[mybooktable book=”civilization-jihad-and-the-myth-of-moderate-islam” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Officials say three of the militants responsible

Policy

For both policy reasons and narcissism, I wish the most popular item ever posted on International Liberty was Mitchell’s Golden Rule. But that guide to sensible fiscal policy isn’t even in the top 70.

Instead, my most-read article is a set of cartoons showing how the welfare state inevitably metastasizes as more and more people are lured into the wagon of government dependency. I suspect these cartoons are popular because they succinctly capture and express a concern that is instinctively felt by many people.

But instinct isn’t the same as evidence.

So I’ve shared various estimates of America’s growing dependency problem, though I’ve also warned that these numbers don’t necessarily tell the full story. Given my dissatisfaction with the current estimates, I was very interested to see a new attempt to measure the degree to which nations are undermined by ever-expanding redistribution. Writing for the Mises Institute and using Greece as an example, Justin Murray analyzes the dependency problem.

…without understanding how Greece got into this problem in the first place and identifying the root cause of an over-indebted society, any plan or solution has a high probability of failure. …Greece, being a nation with a high tax rate on production and a high subsidy rate on public assistance, will generate a population that finds greater preference toward public assistance and away from productive labor.

Mr. Murray puts together a new statistic called “implied public reliance,” which is designed to measure how many strangers each worker is supporting.

…we must identify a nation’s currently employed population. Next, all public sector employees are removed to obtain an adjusted productive workforce. …this productive population is divided into the nation’s total population to identify the total number of individuals a worker is expected to support in his country. …the average household size is subtracted from this result to get the final number of individuals that an individual must support that are not part of their own voluntary household. In other words, how many total strangers is this individual providing for? …Greece…is currently expecting each employed person to support 6.1 other people above and beyond their own families.

And here’s a chart from his article, showing the IPR measures for 18 countries. I’m not surprised that Greece has the worst IPR number, and it’s also no surprise that nations such as Italy and France do poorly. Though I am surprised that Canada scores so highly. And Denmark’s decent performance doesn’t make sense considering the data I shared a few months ago.

Implied-Public-Reliance-per-Nation

Implied Public Relations per Nation (Source: Justin Murray/IPR)

Mr. Murray then looks at this data from a different perspective.

To demonstrate how difficult it is to change these systems within a democratic society, we just have to look at the percentage of the population that is reliant on public subsidy.

And here are those numbers.

Government-Dependency-Percentage-by-Nation

Percent of the Population Dependent on Government. (Source: Justin Murray/IPR)

 

Wow. It’s hard to be optimistic after looking at these shocking numbers.

Moreover, I suspect we’ll remain pessimistic even if Mr. Murray’s initial numbers are revised as he refines his methodology.

And here’s the most depressing part of the analysis.

The numbers imply that 67 percent of the population of Greece is wholly reliant on the Greek government to provide their incomes. With such a commanding supermajority, changing this system with the democratic process is impossible as the 67 percent have strong incentives to continue to vote for the other 33 percent — and also foreign entities — to cover their living expenses.

From a public policy perspective, here’s the real challenge: How do you convince voters to back away from the public trough?

In my humble opinion, the only possible solution is to reject any and all bailouts and force Greece to balance its budget overnight. With luck, that may be such a sobering experience that the Greek people might learn that a society based on mooching and looting doesn’t work.

Not that I’m optimistic. Which is why I’ve been worried for more than five years that we’ll eventually see a loss of democracy in some European nations.

P.S. The second-most viewed post of all time is a parable about buying beer, which is actually a lesson about the dangers of so-called progressive taxation. And the third-most viewed post is a parable about applying socialist principles in a classroom, which is a lesson about the dangers about the dangers of redistribution.

P.P.S. On the topic of dependency, here’s what nursery tales would look like if they were written by statists.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

CATO economist Dan Mitchell analyzes the most

Politics

Fox-News-debate-moderator

From left to right: Fox News debate moderators Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly, and Bret Baier. (Photo: AP)

Fox News may be getting hammered by Republican voters and viewers for having an agenda during Thursday night’s debate, but they got what they wanted. A stunning 24 million viewers — and potential voters — watched the 9 PM ET Fox News debate with the top 10 Republican candidates for president, making it the highest-rated cable news program of all time, and Fox News’ most watched program ever by far.

Nielsen Social TV ratings gave the Fox News debate the top Twitter slot, as well, with 3.3 million tweets and 393 million impressions. The debate blew Jon Stewart’s Comedy Central farewell out of the water. The second-tier candidate debate at 5 PM ET drew a whopping 6.1 million viewers, making it the third-highest rated primary debate of all time. The previous champ was ABC News, which hosted a debate that drew 7.6 million on December 10, 2011.

It was clear — even to Bloomberg — that Fox News was trying to have the candidates engage in a cat fight rather than have a substantive discussion on the issues. Why? Because cat fights get ratings. To that end, it’s mission accomplished to Fox News. Still, top Democrats, including DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz are in full panic mode considering the obvious strength and performance of the Republican field.

According to the Post GOP Debate Poll conducted by Gravis Marketing, which asked voters who won the Republican debate, Dr. Ben Carson edged out Donald Trump by 3 percent, 22 – 19 percent.

A whopping 24 million viewers -- and

Polls

2016-Republican-debate

WASHINGTON, Aug. 7, 2015 — According to the Post GOP Debate Poll conducted by Gravis Marketing, which asked voters who won the Republican debate, Dr. Ben Carson edged out Donald Trump by 3 percent, 22 – 19 percent.

Two primary questions asked to Republican polled participants were “Who do you think won the debate?” and “Who do you think lost the debate?”  GOP Presidential Candidates Ben Carson and Marco Rubio scored well in both categories, but Donald Trump, who came in second on the question of “who won the debate?”, also scored second on “who lost the debate?”. 

As PPD’s Editorial Board argued following the debate, voters and political junkies on social media caught on to Fox News from the beginning and was clearly taking advantage of a heavily polarized Republican base for ratings.

Who Won the Debate?

%

Who Lost the Debate?

%

Ben Carson

22%

Rand Paul

34%

Donald Trump

19%

Donald Trump

30%

Marco Rubio

13%

Chris Christie

9%

Jeb Bush

10%

Jeb Bush

7%

Mike Huckabee

9%

John Kasich

4%

John Kasich

8%

Ben Carson

4%

Ted Cruz

7%

Mike Huckabee

4%

Scott Walker

7%

Ted Cruz

4%

Rand Paul

3%

Scott Walker

2%

Chris Christie

2%

Marco Rubio

2%

Meanwhile, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did not have a very good evening, with both scoring at the bottom of “who won?” and Paul way out in front on “who lost?” Christie same in a distant third on the “who lost?” behind Trump at 30 percent.

Polled registered Republican voters were also asked, “Do you have a more favorable or less favorable opinion of (each candidate) after the debate?”  Poll results clearly show that Ben Carson won the first GOP debate in the minds of Republican voters with Marco Rubio coming in second place. Sen. Rand Paul, who has consistently polled better against Hillary Clinton in five purple and even bluish states won by Barack Obama, had a rough evening. Paul chose to attack Trump off the get-go, something Fox News had counted on before the debate.

GOP Candidate

More Favorable?

Less Favorable?

Unchanged?

Ben Carson

80%

9%

11%

Marco Rubio

68%

13%

19%

Mike Huckabee

60%

18%

22%

Scott Walker

58%

17%

25%

Ted Cruz

57%

19%

23%

John Kasich

54%

18%

28%

Jeb Bush

48%

27%

25%

Chris Christie

41%

33%

26%

Donald Trump

36%

45%

19%

Rand Paul

14%

67%

19%

“Dr. Ben Carson had a wonderful evening,” said Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network. “He was articulate and, at times, funny. Carson stayed out of the verbal jabbing that cost Christie and Paul some points this evening.”

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 904 registered Republican voters across the U.S.  Questions included in the poll were focused only on the top ten GOP candidates that participated in the 9 PM ET debate. The poll has an overall margin of error of +/- 3%.  The polls were conducted on August 6, immediately following the GOP debate using interactive voice response, IVR, technology.

A Post GOP Debate Poll conducted by

Policy

China's benchmark index fell by 5.9 per cent

A stock investor reacts as he checks prices in a brokerage house in Fuyang in central China’s Anhui province, 08 July 2015. Chinese stocks plunged on 08 July, with the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index closing down 5.9 percent despite new measures to shore up share prices. The Shanghai Composite Index has tumbled by around 30 per cent since a peak on 12 June. (PHOTO: EPA/AN MING CHINA OUT)

Is the third time the charm, at least for bailouts? First, we had the TARP bailout in the United States, and that turned out to be a corrupt mess. Second, we had the Greek bailout, which has squandered hundreds of billions of euros to prop up a welfare state. Now we have a third big bailout, with China seeking to stabilize that nation’s faltering stock market. So anybody want to guess how this will work out?

To put it mildly, the Wall Street Journal does not have a favorable opinion of this financial market intervention.

Beijing…officials pumped public money into the market. It hasn’t worked; the Shanghai Composite Index closed Thursday at 3661, 29% below its June peak. …Peking University economist Christopher Balding has added up the bailout and stimulus measures announced since the market panic started in late June. They total $1.3 trillion, or more than 10% of GDP.

So why is this a bad thing?

For two reasons, as the WSJ explains. First, it’s an unjustified wealth transfer. Second, it creates an economic environment contaminated by moral hazard.

Investors who bought when the market was already frothy are getting a chance to exit with some of their profits intact. But Chinese who don’t own stocks are justified in asking why they must subsidize their fellow citizens’ poor decisions. Mr. Balding’s spreadsheet shows that the market-rescue measures represent a huge transfer of wealth to investors who should have been prepared to shoulder the risks when they bought shares. The failed bailout reinforces the expectation that Beijing will attempt to manage the financial markets in the future. This moral hazard means the volatility will continue, along with the costs of future bailouts.

You won’t be surprised to learn that I share the Wall Street Journal’s skepticism. In a recent interview with Neil Cavuto, I said the Chinese government (like just about all governments) is too focused on short-run pain avoidance.

[brid video=”13091″ player=”1929″ title=”Dan Mitchell on China Propping Up Financial Markets to Avoid Inevitable Pain”]

In other words, by trying to prop up markets in the short run, I think the Chinese government will cause a far greater amount of economic pain in the long run.

Two other points from the interview deserve highlighting.

  1. China’s economy needs more economic liberalization (as opposed to the snake oil being peddled by the IMF) if it hopes to become a first-world nation. While there’s been a lot of progress since the wretched deprivation and poverty of Mao’s era, China is still way behind the United States and other nations with more capitalistic systems. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan are appropriate role models.
  2. Whenever folks on the left point to a “success story” that ostensibly proves big government and central planning are more successful that capitalism, it’s just a matter of time before they’re proven wrong. Some of them were delusional enough to think the Soviet Union was economically successful (see bottom of this post) and events proved them wrong. As I pointed out in the interview, some of them thought Japan’s model of central planning was the ticket for prosperity and events proved them wrong. More recently, some of them have argued that China’s state-driven economy was a role model and they’re now being shown to be wrong.

P.S. Let’s close with some economic humor.

Fans of old-time comedy are probably familiar with the famous who’s-on-first exchange between Abbott and Costello.

Well, here’s a modern version of that exchange that showed up in my mailbox yesterday, only it deals with joblessness. I won’t strain credibility by asserting it’s as funny as the original sketch, but it does indirectly highlight the fact that we should focus primarily on labor force participation since that measure how many people are producing wealth for the nation.

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible times. It’s 5.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.

ABBOTT: 5.6% unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right, 5.6% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%.

COSTELLO: Wait a minute! Is it 5.6% or 23%?

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work, you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can’t count the “out of work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are out of work!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking; and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment rolls, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment rate just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a politician.

P.P.S. While economist deservedly get mocked, we’re not totally useless. We occasionally show a bit of cleverness.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Is the third time the charm for

Economy

jobs-report-getty

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – MAY 30: A job seeker holds a pamphlet during a job and career fair at City College of San Francisco southeast campus on May 30, 2013 in San Francisco, California. Hundreds of job seekers attended a career fair hosted by the San Francisco Southeast Community Facility Commission. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The Labor Department’s July jobs report found the U.S. economy added 215,000 jobs in July, 8,000 jobs below the 223,000 median economists forecast. The headline job creation numbers are decent enough that it will fuel growing speculation that the Federal Reserve will start raising interest rates in September.

The headline unemployment rate was 5.3 percent last month, unchanged from June but inline with economists’ expectations. The civilian labor force participation rate was unchanged at 62.6 percent, after falling by 0.3 percentage point in June to another 37-year low. The employment-population ratio, which is less cited than the participation rate but even more important, stood at 59.3 percent, also unchanged in July. It has shown little to no movement thus far the entire year.

Among the unemployed, the number of new entrants — those who have never previously worked — decreased by 107,000 in July. Further, the number of long-term unemployed — or, those jobless for 27 weeks or more, and account for 26.9 percent of unemployed Americans — was again unchanged at 2.2 million.

The number of persons employed part-time for economic reasons — who are sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers — was also sideways in July at 6.3 million. These Americans would have preferred full-time employment, but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. In July, 1.9 million persons were still marginally attached to the labor force. Speaking of which, let’s look at the sectors that created those jobs to underscore why wages have been flat.

The most jobs were created in the trade, transportation, and utilities sector, which saw an increase of 26,977 jobs in July. Education and health services, government, leisure and hospitality, and financial activities rounded out the top five sectors creating the most jobs over the last month.

Wage growth has also lagged behind other economic indicators, such as the employment rate itself, throughout the historically slow recovery following the 2008 financial crisis. In July, average hourly earnings for all workers rose 5 cents in July to $24.99, rising just 2.1 percent over the year. However, economists had expected wages would rise slightly by 0.2 percent in July. Private-sector wages rose 3 cents to $21.01. Meanwhile, the average workweek for all employees in the U.S. increased 0.1 hour to 34.6 hours in July.

Fed policy makers, facing the growing need to raise rates, are struggling with the decision because it will make it more expensive for consumers and the debt-riddled government to borrow money. For consumers, it will be more difficult to pay for big ticket items such a new home, an automobile or kitchen appliances. With wages essentially stagnant, the Fed is concerned that raising borrowing costs will stifle what little economic progress has been made since 2008.

For months, the Federal Open Market Committee had been saying the decision to raise rates was “data dependent,” but a second quarter GDP report released last week alleged the economy rebounded from a weak first quarter. Worth noting, as PPD reported, the government’s methodologies for calculating GDP were again changed to heavily weigh for investment, which makes economic growth “more happy.” It is the second time in just a few years that the government altered the numbers following a contraction.

 

The Labor Department's July jobs report found

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe